Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?

Ref ID	228
First Author	L. Pagliaro
Journal	DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Year Of Publishing	2010
URL	https://www.dldjournalonline.com/article/S1590-8658(09)00294-1/pdf
Keywords	Cochrane Stakeholder Expertise External validity Gastroenterology Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s)	Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste Inflexible methods to complex questions Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity Unwieldy/ difficult to read
Number of systematic reviews included	87
Summary of Findings	The authors concluded that the 87 Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews contained six empty reviews which found no eligible randomised trials and six found one trial, precluding a systematic review; with some empty reviews investigating irrelevant topics. Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included. Most reviews were too lengthy (median: 40 pages) and their consultation was time-consuming with respect to clinical content. They generally compared two treatments, disregarding other options, and usually did not report any non-randomised (although convincing) evidence of potential use in clinical decision-making.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No